[ryandrake]

I think the original poster is pointing out the irony that a site that exists to help people opt out of data mining allows itself, through it's privacy policy, to data mine.

EDIT: Also, there exist free SSL certificate providers.

[WinstonCompany]

As stated, the privacy policy is to legally protect ourselves because we have attorneys working on the project.

   Also, there exist free SSL certificate providers.

Yeah, we've actually tried open SSL on some other projects. We think it is still lacking in real usability.

[matthewmcg]

Ask your attorneys how you are complying with the notice requirement in Section 7 of Google Analytics Terms of Service. That's what the parent was referring to and those terms would normally apply to your company if it is enrolled in analytics and using it on its site.

[tedivm]

Your lawyers are awful then. You don't need permission to collect and merge data about us in order to provide this service- if you're explicit about what you actually do then that's all the privacy you need. On top of that your supposed lawyers, in the process of trying to protect you, have you violating the terms of service of one of your vendors and are violating your own privacy policy but not disclosing that you are using google analytics. So your lawyers appear to be doing the exact opposite of protecting you.

In all seriousness, see if you can get a group like the EFF to help you craft a privacy policy that isn't so ridiculous but still protects you.

[jrochkind1]

> As stated, the privacy policy is to legally protect ourselves because we have attorneys working on the project.

I understand how you need a privacy policy (with or without attorneys working on the project). I don't understand how you need a policy that says you will use personal information for direct and online marketting, for protection. Couldn't you just not do that, and have a policy that says you won't?

[rhizome]

Why does having attorneys involved specifically matter?